:::Thanks Per. I am thinking-San Francisco-the next Chicago on Wikitravel? <font color="red">Keep Smiling,</font> [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 19:32, 24 November 2008 (EST).
:::Thanks Per. I am thinking-San Francisco-the next Chicago on Wikitravel? <font color="red">Keep Smiling,</font> [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 19:32, 24 November 2008 (EST).
Revision as of 21:35, 7 March 2009
I absolutely hate the "Respect" section. Obviously written by some dumbass stoner who only lives to smoke and experience weed culture. Great jeorb, dude.
This quote about the mission district sounds misleading, like someone who lives in another part of the city heard it from someone and reported it here: "Two Hispanic gangs have been known to shoot or stab people for wearing the wrong color, so it is recommended to keep red or blue articles of clothing to a minimum while walking through the Mission District, especially around 16th and Mission and 24th and Mission." I lived in the mission for 3 years (east of mission street between the supposed gang zones) and I never thought twice about wearing blue and red. These gangs were primarily in fights with each other, not uninvolved neighbors. I think it would be much more useful to say "If you're worried about your safety, stay in populated areas (many areas of Mission until 2am on weekends or 10pm on weeknights). Also, avoid wearing flash items that look like they could be easily stolen, like that $3000 Hermes bag." Or something better written. Advice? Disagreements? - lirani
That addition sounds like advice that's applicable pretty much anywhere, not specifically San Francisco. The Mission section does seem rather overblown (it's no Hunters Point!), perhaps it's best to simply delete most of it? - Dguillaime 01:51, 25 February 2009 (EST)
A stub ?
I don't think this article is a stub anymore, so I'd suggest we remove the stub-template. Objections?? --22.214.171.124 17:49, 14 Nov 2005 (EST)
I think that's still there because the Contact & Cope sections are empty. Once those have some content the stub notice can be removed. There has also been some discussion about changing from either "stub" or "complete" to a more granular system, although I can't find it at the moment. -- Ryan 18:47, 14 Nov 2005 (EST)
I'm about o move to San Francisco for some time. So I wonder, what movies I show to friends on my farewell party? Something about San Francisco, lots of nice (reprentive) pictures, maybe something with an issue? Any ideas? Suggestions?
(And, if this is the wrong place to ask, where should I asknext time?)
--126.96.36.199 17:23, 22 May 2005 (EDT)
I moved most of the info from Golden Gate Bridge to here, and tried making it a little bulleted attraction, but it kept getting too big. So then I just made it a subsection of "See". I don't think the GGBridge should have its own article -- see Wikitravel:What is an article? -- but I also didn't think it was small enough for a bullet point. Comments? -- Evan 13:53, 4 Nov 2003 (PST)
IMHO Caltran should actually be under Get In, the reason being that it runs between S.F. and the airport. Of course it also goes to Silicon Valley, but who would "Get Out" of S.F. to go there, unless it's for a job, in which case the worker doesn't probably need wikitravel.. ;) -- Mark 05:51, 12 Dec 2003 (PST)
Evan, didn't you notice that "BARTing dogs don't bike" is a joke? It should go to BJAODN. -phma 22:52, 13 Dec 2003 (PST)
You are sooooo begging for someone to acknowledge that joke, aren't you? Yes, it cracked me up. Then again, I have a terrible sense of humor.
On a more serious note, not only don't we not yet have a Wikitravel:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, but... I'm wondering if we need it! I don't know if humor is as much out of place in a travel guide as it would be in, say, an encyclopedia (just to pull an example out of the air).
I guess I just wonder if the tone of a travel guide doesn't allow for a little more flexibility on these matters. Then again, again, maybe we would still need a BJAODN for this joke in particular. --Evan 07:12, 14 Dec 2003 (PST)
What about "Coke: imbuvable" in the French phrasebook? I don't find that funny, it'd hinder anyone trying to get a Coke in France, and it should be taken away in a hovercraft full of eels. -phma 07:20, 14 Dec 2003 (PST)
Checking around, I found another: "sarong wrap". I like it. I think the jokes should stay. -phma 07:42, 14 Dec 2003 (PST)
So, I figure (once again, trying to make a rule for everything) that jokes should be with the traveler, not on the traveler (the traveller comes first). Our goal is not to make a knock-knock joke book, of course, but there's no reason all our prose has to be bone-dry and boring. Jokes and humor probably shouldn't get in the way of people who need information, and they shouldn't be the principle part of a guide, but I think that a light tone may be just fine. --Evan 07:54, 14 Dec 2003 (PST)
I removed "nosey" from the description of smoking as it is not in keeping with the neutrality of Wikitravel. Perhaps there is another word that is neutral. Also, one can argue whether it actually is nosy, as the concern is typically about the health or comfort of the complainant, not the smoker. Notty 14:48, Feb 7, 2004 (EST)
As a smoker and a San Franciscan, I can say that it's impressive how self-righteous and intrusive people can be about smoking. The same folks who wouldn't lift a finger to stop a mugging or a beating are positively eager to cross the street to give you a lecture about how rude you are to have a cig in the open air. It's probably worth noting that the Bay Area is almost unique this way (people in parts of the Pacific Northwest do the same thing).
That said, I thought you did a good job making the paragraph more neutral. --Evan 15:54, 7 Feb 2004 (EST)
I just noticed that the insertion of "nosey" as well as changing "Be aware" to "Beware" at the time this was moved from the intro to Understand was marked as a minor edit. I'm uncomfortable about this. If I were more skilled at Wiki I might have not bothered to check the move, and would have missed this edit. I'm happy to assume that this was an accident: I'm guessing you decided to move the paragragh, according to the description, so correctly marked it as a minor edit, then decided to revise the text during the preview process, forgetting to uncheck minor edit or update the summary.
I'm conflicted as to whether "Beware" is neutral, but if people have actually crossed the street to chew you out about smoking (whether or not that particular person would ignore a mugging), then perhaps "Beware" is an appropriate word. For the record, while I am anti-smoking, I try to restrict my comments to the problem ("I'm sorry, but your smoke is bothering me. Could you please put it out?") and if it can be handled easily (say, by dropping back or walking faster or moving downwind or suggesting we switch places in line) I don't bother to say that at all. And I have a whistle I blow if I see attempts at violence, although I admit I can be slow on the uptake if I'm not sure what is going on.
Also, as you are probably already aware, in the US it is common to comment and query on things such as others' weight or visible physical defects, so if San Franciscans are indeed nosy, they are not alone.
The following was stuck in the middle of the bike paragraph by KuniShiro by mistake, probably by accidentally hitting the middle button:
atures live piano music courtesy of Spencer Day. The clientele is diverse, but skews towards young, hip gay men; the specials of the day are usually cheap, sweet, and highly alcoholic. http://www.thelushlounge.com/
Arrow Bar, 10 6TH St, 255-7920. Friday night brings out the darker side of the hipster crowd where local DJs spin a mix of trendy 80s, hip-hop, house, and anything else that gets your body moving music at this relatively small and dark lounge. Expect crazy hair styles, black clothes, and some fun people.
Please take a closer look towards the San Fran district map.
I spotted serveral improvements which should be made: the "avenues" should be replaced with the "sunset district", I miss Pacific heights and Richmond district! Could please someone who lives there take care of it.
"The Avenues" is just our name for that district. It covers Sunset, Richmond, and Golden Gate Park. Renaming it "Sunset" would ignore the fact that Richmond is in there too. ;) PerryPlanetTalk 11:47, 10 December 2008 (EST)
I changed the interlanguage links and Wikipedia link from having underscores to not having underscores. It's better to use the actual name of the articles. --Evan 17:37, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)
Could it perhaps be appropriate to start dividing the content of the San Francisco main article up into separate district pages? Paul James Cowie 05:44, 11 March 2006 (EST)
Too many districts
At the moment there are 32 districts for San Francisco. While it's great that residents of San Francisco have been creating articles for their neighborhoods, it's a bit confusing for a traveler. I'm not sure how best this can be fixed, but some suggestions include:
Lump districts under logical headings such as "Downtown" (Financial District, Chinatown, etc), "Golden Gate Area" (Pac Heights, Marina), etc.
Create a map of the city that shows where each district is located.
Reduce the number of districts by consolidating where appropriate.
Any other ideas on how this could be cleaned up a bit more? I'm not familiar enough with all of the neighborhoods to do many cleanups myself, but perhaps someone who is could take a stab at it? -- Ryan 17:43, 2 April 2006 (EDT)
I live in SF and there is definitely a few too many districts on there, while at least the Excelsior district is missing. I.e. Union Square and Civic Center are not districts. Morgenlandfahrer 14:36, 4 April 2006 (EDT)
I haven't looked at this article in a while, but as a former Bay Area resident I can't figure out what each district refers to, so the usefulness of this article to a traveler is definitely limited. If anyone knows the city well enough to understand where each of these districts are, we really need to consolidate the existing list into 5-9 district articles, and then redirect the existing districts to the new articles. Additionally, a map that shows where the boundaries of each district will eventually be needed so that someone who knows they want to see Chinatown and the Golden Gate Bridge can tell where those places are located and what district article will have hotel and restaurant info. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
This map from the San Francisco tourism board might be a good start. I'm not sure what each district would be called, so if anyone has ideas... -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
The site you linked too may actually be a useful resource for determining a better organization for San Francisco, and the map (http://sfgate.com/traveler/guide/sf/maps/sf-overview.gif) might be a good start. In the mean time if there isn't a better place to put information about Cole Valley then starting an article is definitely better than not contributing, just be aware that at some point all of the districts listed under San Francisco will need to be re-organized and the information will get moved around. If you have any suggestions as to how that should happen, ideas would be welcome :) -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:26, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
I have one of two suggestions on this subject, that may be a start if nothing else.
1. A very quick way to do this is to look at the following map  This breaks down the entire city into 10 discrete districts (ignore District 11 as San Mateo is a separate county). Below the map, it even gives a pretty detailed breakdown of circa 60 neighborhoods that belong to those districts. The map was created by Realtors, and perhaps therefore there is at least a decent correlation with the needs of travellers. It would result in 10 Districts. You could perhaps though merge districts 4, 5 and 6 and call it "Central San Francisco"? That would result in 8 Districts.
2. A more official approach would be to use the governmental district map which subdivides our city as delineated by the US Census Bureau.  You can see a detailed view of each individual district here  I know that that doesn't sound very relevant to travellers, however, both maps are remarkably similar and the classifications I believe would lend themselves to travellers. It would result in 11 Districts. If you combined Districts 5 and 8 you could call it "Central San Francisco" I have placed the current Wikitravel Neighborhoods into these prospective Districts and have taken a stab at a naming some of the Districts here - but this should be considered very tentative at best.
DISTRICT 1 (RICHMOND?) – Richmond
DISTRICT 2 (PRESIDIO, MARINA AND PACIFIC HEIGHTS?)– Cow Hollow, Pacific Heights, Marina, Japantown
DISTRICT 3 (DOWNTOWN?) - Financial District, Fisherman’s Wharf, North Beach, Nob Hill, Russian Hill, Chinatown
DISTRICT 4 (SUNSET?) – Sunset,
DISTRICT 5 – (CENTRAL SAN FRANCISCO?) Western Addition, Haight-Ashbury, Haight-Fillmore (Lower Haight), Hayes Valley
DISTRICT 6 (UNION SQUARE TO SOMA?)- Union Square, SOMA, Civic Center, Tenderloin
DISTRICT 7 (TWIN PEAKS) – Twin Peaks, West Portal, Miraloma Park
DISTRICT 8 (CENTRAL SAN FRANCISCO?) - Castro, Noe Valley
DISTRICT 9 – Mission, Bernal Heights
DISTRICT 10 (SOUTHEAST SAN FRANCISCO?) – Bayview-Hunter’s Point, Potrero Hill, Portola, Visitacion Valley
DISTRICT 11 – Excelsior, Ingleside - Asterix 18:21, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
I just got back from a marvelous three days in San Francisco, and now I'm obsessed with the city. Now, I'm no expert on the city, and my experience with the city only stretches as far as those three days, which were mostly spent in the northern part of San Francisco (and even that only scratched the surface). But I really want to get into the discussion here.
Asterix, don't take this wrong way, I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but I don't think that either of your suggestions would be a very good organization of districts. Something from the Census Bureau may be good for bureaucratic and official purposes, but it completely ignores the diversity and culture of the individual neighborhoods. I mean, Fisherman's Wharf, Chinatown, and the Financial District in the same article? I just can't see such a layout of SF's districts making much sense from a tourist standpoint.
Now the second map Ryan provided is actually quite good for a district layout of San Francisco, with lots of clearly defined neighborhoods there. So let me put down my proposal for San Francisco, and see what you guys think...
District 1 ("Fisherman's Wharf"): Basically the same thing it is now. From a street standpoint, it's everything north of Bay Street and east of Van Ness Avenue. Fisherman's Wharf has a large amount of attractions, so I don't think it has to be shuffled into something else.
District 2 ("Golden Gate Area"): Includes the Presidio, Marina, and Cow Hollow (everything north of Broadway and west of Van Ness Avenue).
District 3 ("Russian Hill/North Beach"): Includes Russian Hill, North Beach, and Telegraph Hill. Runs from Van Ness Avenue on the west to the Embarcadero on the east, Bay Street on the north to Broadway, Columbus, and Washington on the south.
District 4 ("Chinatown/Nob Hill"): Includes Chinatown and Nob Hill. Covers everything south of Broadway, north of Bush Street, east of Van Ness Avenue, and west of Kearny Street.
District 5 ("Downtown"): Includes Civic Center, Tenderloin, Union Square, Financial District, and SoMa. Boundaries run roughly from the Embarcadero on the east, King Street and the Central Freeway on the south, Franklin and Van Ness on the west, and Bush, Kearny, and Washington on the north.
District 6 ("Richmond"): Includes Richmond, Lincoln Park, and Golden Gate Park. Runs from the Presidio on the north, Arguello on the east, the ocean on the west, and Lincoln on the south.
District 7 ("Pacific Heights/Western Addition"): Includes Pacific Heights, Laurel Heights, Western Addition, Japantown, and Hayes. Bordered by Broadway to the north, Arguello to the west, Oak on the south, and Van Ness/Franklin to the east.
District 8 ("The Haight"): Includes Haight-Ashbury and Haight-Fillmore. Runs from about Stanyan on the west, Oak on the north, 17th on the south, and Market on the southeast.
District 9 ("Castro/Noe Valley"): Includes Castro and the Noe Valley. Covers everything from about 17th and Market on the north, Twin Peaks on the west, Church on the east, and down to 30th on the south.
District 10 ("Mission"): Includes Mission and Bernal Hill. Runs from the 101 on the north and east, the 280 on the south, and Castro and Noe Valley on the west.
District 11 ("Bayview-Hunters Point/Potrero"): Everything east of 101, west of the bay, and south of SoMa (at around King Street).
District 12 ("Excelsior"): Includes Excelsior, Portolá, and Visitacion Valley. Runs from 101 on the east, 280 on the north and west, and the county line on the south.
District 13 ("Ingleside"): Includes Ingleside, Miraloma Park, and Mt. Davidson. Boundaries are roughly from about 280 on the east and south, Portola Drive on the north, and Junipero Serra Blvd on the west.
District 14 (Sunset/Twin Peaks"): Includes just about everything west of the Twin Peaks (including the Twin Peaks themselves) and south of Golden Gate Park.
Anyway, that's my idea. Your thoughts? PerryPlanet 01:59, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
It might be nice to find a balance between this list, which is great for tourists, and the list Asterix posted, which is a bit more concise. At first glance, it looks reasonable to combine Excelsior and Ingleside (12 & 13) since they are more residential and less likely to appeal to visitors, and we could potentially lump in Bayview-Hunters Point/Potrero (11) as well and just create a "South San Francisco" district. Similarly, Pac Heights and Richmond (6 & 7) could probably be combined. That would get the list down to 11, and the major residential/industrial areas would be lumped into "super districts", allowing editors to focus on the places that are more relevant to travelers. In any case, the sooner we can get a decent map the easier this will be to discuss - despite living in the Bay Area for many years I still have to look at maps to figure out where the heck Cow Hollow, Noe Valley, and Twin Peaks actually are. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:36, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
I can totally see combining Excelsior with Ingleside, that could work. Not sure about throwing in Bayview-Hunters Point/Potrero, but I don't know enough about those neighborhoods to have a strong opinion. Combining Richmond with Pacific Heights/Western Addition could work out well (they are fairly similar areas), but making Pacific Heights/Western Addition by itself involves combining a bunch of smaller neighborhoods together, and throwing in a big thing like Richmond with the Golden Gate Park and all its attractions might be just a bit much. But then again, I could be wrong. PerryPlanet 03:15, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't feel strongly about the suggestions above, so if someone is willing to start working on a map and putting things into the proper place then I don't want to get in the way. At this point it's probably better to start getting the city organized with districts that are "good enough" rather than doing nothing while waiting for the perfect solution. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
Looks good to me. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:25, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
Looking forward to seeing this develop, and remember that that backslash is a no-no in the article name. Try a hyphen? --PeterTalk 20:22, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
No backslash, gotcha. :) PerryPlanet 21:38, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
Sure, that's fine. I just want it to be clearly understood that the map I cited is the official classification as set forth by the 'almighty government', and as such it is really the only true and correct categorization of Districts/Neighborhoods  Looking at the comments posted by PerryPlant - I am concerned that, conceptually, this has not been understood. In the same manner that there are 50 geographical states in the USA - there are 11 Districts in San Francisco, no more, no less. Districts house neighborhoods - but they are not neighborhoods themselves and vica versa.
However, if people want to scratch this approach in favor of a more pragmatic one, that perhaps more closely reflects the needs of tourists - that's more than fine. I just think that you should call these new areas something other than "Districts", because well, they're not....they're classifications of 'Neighborhoods'. Also, calling them 'Districts' will only serve to confuse the average traveler - I think that the last thing a tourist would want, is to return home saying "I really enjoyed seeing the sea lions in the 'Fisherman's Wharf District'"...because, then they are going to sound pretty ignorant, kinda like George Bush did when he referred to Africa as a "Country". Sorry, but under no conditions could one call 'Fisherman's Wharf' a district...that Amy Winehouse song is ringing in my ears..."No No No!" So, if people are forging ahead with this new map, or a better one with the same premise, can we please use a different term other than "District", else, at the very least, can someone disclose that this is not the official classification of "Districts", but just an interpretation thereof for the purposes of the guide. Thanks Asterix 12:57, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
PS...At the above link, the third dropdown box from the top labelled "Neighborhood Resources", will probably help you classify neighborhoods onto your new map. Asterix 13:08, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
True, districts are officially set areas by the government, such as the District of Columbia. However, districts can also refer to an area (such as a neighborhood) that is distinct in some way. I think this excerpt from Wikipedia's page on districts puts it well:
"Many (American) cities in the late 20th century adopted names for non-governmental districts as a way of increasing recognition and identity of these distinct areas. Perhaps most apparently in Los Angeles, various areas and neighborhoods within the city are specified as districts. For instance, Hollywood is a district of Los Angeles, whereas Beverly Hills is an independent city, with its own government and police department. This can often lead to confusion among foreigners and natives alike, as the difference between districts, suburbs and neighboring cities is often quite ambiguous, for they all make up the greater LA area. As with any city, the important distinction is that areas classified as districts are still part of the parent city."
So we're just using the term "district" to indicate a unique area of the city. So using this very general definition, Fisherman's Wharf is a "district" - a distinct area of the city. Whether it's distinct in a positive or negative way is a personal interpretation, but it is distinct from the next door neighborhoods of North Beach or Russian Hill. But you do raise a very good point, perhaps we should use a different term for the areas of a city. But we should probably continue this discussion elsewhere, perhaps at Wikitravel talk:Geographical hierarchy. PerryPlanet 14:39, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
I've noticed that the Chicago article cheats and has more than nine districts by pseudo-combining them. Would that be a helpful technique here? -- Colin 13:40, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
Also on the "districts" note, maybe it would be helpful to include a little note under the ==Districts== header, saying that they are for travel purposes, and do not correspond to the official districts? Maybe even just between no-show <!-- --> tags? --PeterTalk 15:12, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
Hi, yep sure.."Many American Cities"....not San Francisco though, and in any event, Non-Governmental District or not, the boundaries are delineated by politicians, and with the greatest respect, not Wikitravelers. Demonstratively, I might decide as a matter of personal interpretation, that my house was "distinct", as you say, from my neighbors - it doesn't follow that we're in two separate Districts, simply because I may wish it so.
Anyway, Colin what you said was interesting and it got me thinking. Is there not an obvious physical constraint here - doesn't the file size of an article act as a de facto determinant of what it can contain? That is to say, that isn't there a point where you have to start breaking articles up due to their length? The fact of the matter is that even though there are circa 34 neighborhoods listed, in reality there are probably over a hundred neighborhoods in San Francisco  - and lets say that's about 10 per district. Surely, no matter how one delineates a district, or area, or whatever, there cannot be between 11 and 13 articles covering San Francisco - too much information surely?? Colin mentioned Chicago - that has circa 40 articles. So in any event, we were probably going to have to break them up anyway. There are also logical constraints, for example, if you look at either proposal, both have Union Square listed with the Tenderloin. They may be geographically neighbors, but boy are they different. I can't imagine a meaningful list of "Budget Hotels" in the Tenderloin listed side by side with the budget options of their much ritzier neighbors.
So, if I am correct about that, would that not really satisfy both camps. You could use the official Districtal classification, and for those Districts that are of lesser interest to travelers, you could simply have one article pertaining to the entire district. For other more popular districts, you would have artistic license to merge or concatenate 'Neighborhoods' as you saw fit. Sure, as Colin says, its kinda cheating a little but I think it's here (at the Neighborhood level) that one would really have poetic license to express the culture of the city etc. and you would get to draw lots of colorful lines within the existing Districtal demarkations. So, PerryPlanet would also get to list more popular neighborhoods like Fisherman's' Wharf, separately. As long as they came under the correct Districtal headings on the main San Francisco page, then travelers wouldn't confuse 'Neighborhoods' with 'Districts'. Just a thought. Oops, I feel like I'm holding up the show here, I am happy to go along with the consensus is - I just feel a little uneasy about cracking out the Crayolas and drawing new districtal lines over a city, but if that's the decision - no probs! Asterix 17:07, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
Just wanted to quickly voice my support for attacking cities with crayolas—in a fit of megalomania, Marc and I even made up some new names for parts of Chicago, in hopes that we might hear someone use them in the future ;) --PeterTalk 18:30, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
Hey - Knock yourself out, just make sure it doesn't end up looking like one of these  :) Asterix 14:58, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
Good points Asterix. I do like your solution, it's a great compromise between our two ideas. One thing though, Chicago doesn't have 40 district articles, it has just 21 (not including the airport, itineraries, and the skyline guide), even though they're listed as more.
So now we just have to figure out which districts are going to become articles of their own, which will have to be broken up, and if we perhaps we should combine any of them if we feel like it would make sense. So looking back at the official district map, districts 1, 2, 8 and 9 are already pretty similar between our two proposals (with the exception that Pacific Heights is combined with Marina and Cow Hollow, which I'm totally cool with). District 10 looks great to me. Districts 4, 7 and 11 are a bit trickier, cause I suggested combining Twin Peaks with Sunset, and Ryan suggested combining Excelsior with Ingleside. So what do we want to do here? Should we keep 4, 7 and 11 separated, or should we combine two or all three of them? Personally, I feel like combining all three and then doing what you see on the Chicago page, where separate links would be given for neighborhoods (so in this case, "Twin Peaks", "Sunset", "Ingleside" and "Excelsior"), but they all just lead to the same article. But I don't feel strongly about this.
So that would leave districts 3, 5 and 6 as the tricky ones where we have to figure out how we want to split them up. I've already put down my idea on this, but surely there must be others... PerryPlanet 13:40, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
Hi, how many 'Articles' are required?? I have drawn up a rough sketch below that would create 14 articles. Too much, too little?...it's very very easy to either '+" or "-" to this list. I got the impression though that people wanted less than Chicago's 21? As you can see, I combined 'Districts' here as well - I am not averse to doing this - there are pros and cons. However, I feel if you do so, it would have to be made explicitly clear on the District Outline Section on the 'Main San Francisco Page' that there are indeed 11 Districts, but we've just combined a few for ease of use purposes. A clear map should mirror this Districtal outline, clearly demarking the Districts, but also maybe coloring in the 'To Be Confirmed' Neighborhoods Clusters - similar to what PerryPlanet had done, or if they end up being mostly non-contiguous maybe it would just be easier to just list the names on the map instead? I also tried to list the more popular Districts first. That would mean that casual tourists would get a overview of the neighborhoods they what they want to see ( Fisherman's Wharf, Union Square, Golden Gate Park) by just looking at the first few Districts. Under each heading, I gave a concatenated string list of the major Neighborhoods, where each string represnts a URL link to a single 'Article' (I am not to sure about the way it was done on the Chicago page. Actually, I found that a little confusing. I know that programmers use redundancy a lot, but I am not sure if that works on a Travel Guide...I was surprised to get to the same page by clicking on differently named links...just didn't feel intuitive?)
CHINATOWN, NOB HILL, RUSSIAN HILL, TELEGRAPH HILL, WATERFRONT
Fisherman's Wharf, Aquatic Park and The Embarcadero
Chinatown, North Beach, Telegraph Hill and The Financial Distirct
Nob Hill, Russian Hill
SOMA, TENDERLOIN, TREASURE ISLAND
Market Street, Van Ness/Civic Center, Tenderloin
SOMA, South Beach and Mission Bay
COW HOLLOW, MARINA, PACIFIC HEIGHTS
Pacific Heights, Cow Hollow, The Marina and The Presido
RICHMOND AND SUNSET
Sunset, Richmond and The Golden Gate Park
HAIGHT ASHBURY, PANHANDLE AND WESTERN ADDITION
The Haight and Buena Vista Park
Western Addition, Alamo Square and Hayes Valley
CASTRO, GLEN PARK AND NOE VALLEY AND PARK MERCED, WEST TWIN PEAKS
The Castro and Twin Peaks
Noe Valley, Glen Park, Diamond Heights, West Portal and Lake Merced
MISSION DISTRICT, BERNEL HEIGHTS
The Mission and Bernel Heights
BAYVIEW, HUNTERS POINT, POTRERO AND EXCELSIOR, INGLESIDE
Potrero Hill, Bayview-Hunters Point, Excelsior and Ingleside
Points to Note: Actually - looking at it, I've actually gotten a bit cheeky here with the classifications. For example, Market Street is not a neighborhood, but I've taken a bit of artistic license here myself!! I think thats not so bad though at the neighborhood level and I was just thinking of how people typically flow through and see the city...anyway these can easily be left out. Notice too that I have also used the official District names. I combined Sunset and Richmond as they are both Residential mostly, together they sandwich the very popular G.GatePark and they also are both bordered by Ocean Beach. I combined Bayview-HunterPoint with Excelsior and Ingleside as per the orginal map I cited by the Realtors MLS. I also combined the Castro District with Park Merced and West Twin Peaks? Anyway, thats just a very very quick view and was just intended as one example of how it could be done - I know it may seem pretty radical in places and I am sure that people have other opinions. Asterix 14:09, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
Marvelous list. I think 14 districts is a reasonable number, I don't think we're going to realistically get much farther below that. I just have a few things to say about the list:
I feel uneasy about pairing the Financial Distirct up with Chinatown and North Beach. I feel like that one should be combined with Union Square. I know they're in separate districts, but I really feel like they're connected. They're that kinda "upscale" part of downtown, where there's lots of highrises. On a sidenote, I love how you've separated Downtown into those three areas (Union Square, Civic Center/Tenderloin, SoMa), I think it really fits. I just feel like the Financial District should be in there too, regardless of the official district boundaries.
Not a criticism: I think combining Richmond with Sunset is actually a pretty sweet idea. In fact, I hear there's a name for it: "The Avenues". Also, both Richmond and Sunset could lay claim to Golden Gate Park, so instead of picking one over the other I think it's great if we combine them.
I'm not sure about separating Noe Valley and the Castro, cause from what I've heard (not seen, unfortunately, but heard) is that the Castro sorta spills over into Noe Valley. And I feel like Twin Peaks should be combined over with West Portal and Lake Merced, as per the official district layout. To me it makes sense not just from an official "district" view, but also a geographical view, with all those mountains and parks.
Other than those two things, I think it looks fantastic. PerryPlanet 18:56, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
Good, looks like we're in agreement, because I 100% feel that Union Square naturally belongs with it's neighbor the Financial District. I left them apart due to violating the District rule, but seperating them did bug me a bit at the time! However, given the diversity of the City, one or two technical infractions were probably inevitable. Also, I no strong opinion about the Castro with either Noe Valley or Twin Peaks issue, perhaps it's better, as you say, to go with Castro/Noe Valley. Asterix 14:04, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
So, um, it's been about a week, does anyone want to share their thoughts on our proposal? Or should we just go ahead and get cracking with the articles? PerryPlanet 14:47, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm glad to see this is underway, and it looks like the expertise is here to do this well. A note about using Chicago as a basis of comparison for number of districts, though: although we now have 23 articles in the chain for Chicago (including O'Hare Airport and the main city article), we only started with 9. (See Talk:Chicago/Districts_discussion.) We sub-divided the articles further once they filled up with enough content to justify it - not at the outset. Gorilla Jones 14:36, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
This cleaned up nicely, and the map is a HUGE help. Thanks for the effort to those involved. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:14, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
....discussion carried over from my talk page...
actually, I think PerryPlanet had already done some of my ones..no wonder I thought it was so easy!! :) So anyway, I think that this is coming along really well. It looks like the 'validity checking' or 'sense checking' part is over. I would like to suggest just a few more things to finish this off;
Can we add a short statement under the Districts heading on the SF Main Page? Something like..
The map is predominantly based on the 11 official governmental Districts of San Francisco, but it has been adapted to suit the purposes of this guide. Some Districts have been merged together and others have been broken up into popular neighborhood groupings.
I wonder does the outline look a little sparse?? I love the way that we have 14 headings and 14 articles, but maybe we could add a short narritive under each URL heading?? Or perhaps just a list of the neighborhoods (maybe including parks or even attractions etc??) that come under the respective districts. It would be like an At a Glance section and would help the tourist understand what they will get to when the click on the respective links.
Looking at it - PerryPlanet added some very useful geographical descriptions of each District at the top of each page. But, I wonder would it be better to also copy up some of whats in the the 'understand' section too. I am basing this on what I think will look good and what I read about the top section here ???
Your thoughts... Asterix 13:40, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
Sure, feel free to add the short statement about the districts, that sounds great. In fact, I think you should just copy that statement as stick it in, cause I couldn't have put it better myself. Now as to your second point, when you talk about the outline looking a little sparse, are you talking about the list of districts on the main SF page? Then sure, let's throw in something more there. I think a list of all the neighborhoods would be overkill on the main page (leave that to the individual district articles), but a short description of the main highlights you'll find in each district wouldn't go amiss, similar to what you'll see on the Districts section of the Chicago page. As to your third point, I say absolutely. In fact, I was going to start doing that once all the confusion in all the Get in sections had been taken care of. The current headers to the districts were not meant to be permanent, I was meaning to expand those all along. PerryPlanet 14:28, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
Yep, I did mean the list of districts on the main SF page. I agree too - a list of exhaustive neighborhoods would be a bit much! So, I'll add a few short narratives here and there (as per Chicago page example you mentioned), if anyone else wants to write a bit on this - feel free. As for the third point - sorry for the confusion, my mistake, I was sure you were planning on doing this - just wanted to double check :) Anyway, I'm trying to think if there is anything else that needs to be done in relation to the "merge"....huuummm?? Let me know if you think of something. Other than that I might just crack on and try and fatten-up one or two of the 14 new articles. Thanks Asterix 15:13, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
I know I'm coming into this discussion a little late, but as someone who lives and works in SF, I as well as LizW (who has lived in SF for over 20 years) do not agree with some of the grouping of districts. It's a big task to do this, and I applaud the users who have come before me and had a go. Can we open this up for discussion again? I've worked a lot on this article, and each of its district articles, and feel like I owe it to my city to make sure it's correct! Thanks. --MarinaK 04:10, 5 August 2008 (EDT)MarinaK.
By all means, discuss away! However, bear in mind that everyone is going to have their own idea as to how to break down the city, so there really isn't a "correct" way, just a way that appeals the most people. And seeing as we have a couple of star articles under our belt, it's going to be tough to break those up. But please state your ideas, and maybe we can come up with something that satisfies you. :) PerryPlanet 13:46, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Thanks Perry. I realise that I'm still fairly new, but I do spend a lot of time editing content and appreciate the opportunity to help out. Here is a new outline for the districts:
Presidio/Crissy Field/Fort Mason
Civic Center/Hayes Valley
North Beach/Telegraph Hill
Nob Hill/Russian Hill
Union Square/Financial District
The Haight/Cole Valley/Golden Gate Park
The Mission/Noe Valley
Right now Civic Center is paired with the Tenderloin. Any tourist visiting the Civic Center will most likely be seeing a live performance. When people go to live performances, they eat in Hayes Valley, not the Tenderloin. The Mission is always paired w/ Noe Valley, not the Castro. If someone wanted to visit the two of them, they'd have to walk up and down a HUGE hill. I realise that this reorg will take a lot of work so understand if we can't do this right now. Regardless, I'll concentrate on ensuring that the content is spot on. --MarinaK 14:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)MarinaK.
Hi, I notice that you mentioned a couple of times about the contributions that you have made; just so that you know, it doesn't matter if you haven't made any edits at all on WT — you are entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else. However, in relation to the specific edits that you have made to SF, I have to tell you that I reverted the majority of them due to the fact that they mostly deleted content. It took me about 3 hours to fix the SF districts afterwards. If, as you say above, you feel that you owe something to your city, perhaps then it would have been better that you fixed your edits yourself — it's always nice when we at least try to clean up after ourselves, don't you think?
As regards SF, I am an SF gal too and have also lived here for more than 20 yrs, and I feel that your district proposal is incomplete — I only see about a third of the neighborhoods. Also, I am a bit worried that in the section of downtown that you did complete, you appear to have left out the lower income neighborhoods like the Tenderloin and Western Addition. Any proposal would have to go farther than putting together a list of your favorite neighborhoods, at a minimum, it would have to be complete and holistic. Asterix 16:44, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Like Asterix said, your proposal doesn't cover all the neighborhoods, which is a bit of a problem. But anyway, Presidio/Crissy Field/Fort Mason is already combined in the existing Golden Gate article, which also covers the nearby neighborhoods (which I think works well, as Presidio/Crissy Field/Fort Mason adds a lot to the See and Do sections, while the neighborhoods add a lot to the Eat/Drink/Sleep sections).
Now, as for combining Hayes Valley with Civic Center, my feeling is that the Civic Center/Tenderloin is already very long. Is there any particular reason why Hayes Valley would work better with Civic Center than with Western Addition?
On separating Chinatown from North Beach, that might be hard for everyone who made all the effort to push that article to Star status, because a whole lot of work went into getting it there. I'm not saying it can't be done, but I just want you to realize that it will be asking a lot.
As for combining Haight with Golden Gate Park, where does that leave the Sunset and Richmond districts? Right now, they're combined by including the big park which lies between them, and if Sunset and Richmond become their own districts I feel that will lack content. It's another situation of what I discussed regarding the Golden Gate article - Golden Gate Park provides the majority of the See/Do content, while Sunset and Richmond provide most of the Eat/Drink/Sleep content. Now, I could see combining Haight with Golden Gate Park working if you combine Richmond with Western Addition and Sunset with Twin Peaks-Lake Merced, but it seems a tad awkward.
Finally, on the Mission, Noe Valley, Castro, and Bernal Heights districts, your idea is interesting and I didn't really get to see those districts so I don't know if this would be a better organization, but Bernal Heights used to be its own article and it didn't have a lot of content. Now here's an idea: since you want to combine Noe Valley with Mission, what about adding Bernal Heights to that and making Castro its own article? Of course, Castro doesn't have a lot of content now but I'm sure that can be changed. PerryPlanet 11:16, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
I haven't made a change, but why do we say "don't ever call it Frisco"? That's a tight-assed old-timey elitist attitude associated with columnist Herb Caen. A lot of people have loosened up about this in recent decades.
For some of us in the Bay Area who are far from San Francisco partisans, "Frisco" comes across like nails-on-chalkboard. At the very least, it is going to come across as "Easterner deliberately trying to be an ass." -- Colin 15:51, 24 November 2006 (EST)
I've lived here in San Francisco (or in Marin or the East Bay) for more than thirty years. I understand that point of view, but I respectfully suggest that it's time to get past that attitude. (I've added a link with information about this.) -- Txensen
I've removed the comment entirely - IMHO it didn't really add much to the article, and worst case is that calling the city "Frisco" identifies you as a tourist - which visiting Chinatown, riding the cable cars, going on a Segway tour, or embarking on many other activities listed in this article will also do. If a comment is needed please feel free to re-add, but I'm not sure that a five word sentence is worth the hassle it has resulted in. -- Ryan 03:16, 10 December 2006 (EST)
Fine by me. I find the discussion interesting (was it really a "hassle"?), but I suppose it's just a distraction in the bigger picture. --Txensen 12:12, 10 December 2006 (EST)
"Hassle" was probably the wrong word, but we occasionally run into issues that result in long discussions where the subject being debated is of little or no value to a traveler - see for example the "red vs. blue" discussion on Talk:United States of America#Revert of the day. Generally the easiest solution is often to just remove the material in question. -- Ryan 13:15, 10 December 2006 (EST)
Can I suggest a map of the city - including all the attractions highlighted here. I'm looking to make a trip to San Francisco in February/March next year, and without previously visiting America I find the section here on asking for directions confusing + am not confident with the maps immediately locatable on the big search engines
Locals don't use "Avenue" and "Street" in referring to places? This seems like a silly guess at best. After all, where in San Francisco is 3500 19th? Is that the Sunset or the Mission?
in that case they would add avenue or street, but most of the time people seem to use intersections instead of addresses. they tend to say things like say "19th and mission". I remember Black Star North 16:16, 24 February 2009 (EST)
I added a warningbox about the current Strike regarding the Alcatraz tours. It seems to me that in order to Be fair, we need to avoid taking a position on it and just provide facts regarding the dispute that could be of interest to the traveller in making up their own mind about whether to travel to Alcatraz anyway. Here are the facts I tried to convey
The franchise is now held by a non-union shop. It used to be held by a union-shop. (background for the dispute)
There is a strike (taking the tour means crossing a picket line)
There is no other way to get to Alcatraz except via the new company (so don't bother trying to find a different company to take you there. You either cross the line or miss Alcatraz)
Few of the union workers were hired by the new company (some will evaluate the new company's sincerity based on this)
There are no safety issues with the cruise (strikers may allege problems at the dock, and the traveller will need to be prepared to ignore this)
If there are concerns beyond these that someone thinks the traveler ought to know (or if someone thinks something needs to be removed to improve understanding, then let's discuss it. -- Colin 18:12, 13 October 2006 (EDT)
While I agree that this info is important, and should be highlighted, maybe an infobox instead of a warning box? I'm pretty sure there'S no chance of physical harm, which is what I equate the warning boxes with. As it is now, this is a bigger warning/more detail than we give for [Afghanistan|war zones]]! Maj 14:45, 15 October 2006 (EDT)
Infobox is fine with me. It's long because I wanted to try to present both sides in order to let people make an informed decision. Many will want to honor the strike, while others won't want to miss Alcatraz. But if you want to pare it down to "a strike exists" or whatever that's fine too. -- Colin 16:17, 15 October 2006 (EDT)
Oh, btw, the reason I went with warningbox was due to the documentation at Wikitravel:Template index. A strike doesn't really fit any of the uses as described, but I thought warningbox was the closest. I think we need a new kind of box for non-safety related info like road closures or strikes or temporary halts to service. -- Colin 16:22, 15 October 2006 (EDT)
isn't this a guide article yet?
At the very least there needs to be more info for the "Contact" section. Area codes, or just a few internet cafes would be useful. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 03:12, 6 November 2006 (EST)
According to the zany status rules, SF cannot go beyond usable until each and every district article is at least usable. Some of the district articles haven't even been started yet, so there's a bit of work right there. -- Colin 03:20, 6 November 2006 (EST)
The following listings have been removed from the California#Do section, but I can't figure out which of the 32+ San Francisco district articles they should go into. If someone who knows the city better could put these in the appropriate article it would be appreciated:
Rudy Colombini's Center for the Performing Arts, 1353 Bush St, San Francisco, 415 240-5554, . Music museum, cafe, nightclub, and performing arts space.
Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame, 1335 Bush St, San Francisco, . Exhibits focused on musicians from San Francisco who changed the San Francisco music scene.
Dear Ryan, I have just seen your edits at http://wikitravel.org/en/Talk:San_Francisco relating to Rudy Colombini's Center for the Performing Arts and The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, both at 1353-1355 Bush Street, San Francisco. To answer your question about where they belong - actually neither of these venues exist. 1353-1355 is a hotel called the James Court Hotel, aka The Nob Hill Pension http://pacificequitieswest.com/photo_html/bushstreet.html There are plans to set up a musical venue here but they are stalled, apparently due to objections. This is not going to come to fruition for at least 3-4 years, if at all.
This is really just spam, probably put there by the owner, Rudy Colombini himself, as the IP address 188.8.131.52 resolves to 835 Hyde Street - the offices of his company Pacific Equities West LLC. For some information on him and his spamming activities- please see an article on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Phr/Talk:Rudy_Colombini This article documents how he has been a persistent spammer on Wikipedia - trying to pass himself off as a member of the real band 'The Divine Comedy', advertising his hotels on an encyclopedic website, replacing links to desirable and notable hotels and establishments with those of his own.etc etc...
Actually, there is also a hell of a lot of spam been put here on Wikitravel too from this same IP. See http://wikitravel.org/en/Special:Contributions/184.108.40.206 As you can see this guy has been flagrantly deleting references to all his competitor hotels, advertising his hotels under San Fran districts that they are clearly not in, constantly editing an artice to ensure that his hotels always remain at the top of the list and advertising non-existent musical venues. I know that, unlike Wikipedia, you are allowed advertise on Wikitravel, but surely this kind of behaviour is bad for the community. I am new to 'Wiki's' and don't quite know how to address this. Any ideas?? I was thinking of setting up a page to deal with this matter - similar to the one that was set up on Wikipedia. Do you think this would be appropriate or do you have any other ideas on how to deal with this. Would appreciate any help.
Given that neither of the above-mentioned venues are open yet they shouldn't be listed in Wikitravel. Similarly, it might be worth reviewing some of the contributions from the user in question to verify that they are in good-faith and follow Wikitravel policies. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:38, 7 February 2008 (EST)
Without taking a full blown boat tour of the area as well as the island; Is there a ferry to just Alkatraz Island and tour of the prison? We will be in San Francisco beginning July 8th until the 11th. Thanks
The only tour to Alcartraz (BTW, that's the correct spelling) is a ferry to the island & a tour of the prison. Book ahead, weekend tours are usually sold out two weeks ahead. Don't know what you mean by 'full blown boat tour of the area'.
An anon removed most of the content from the Eat section on or around Feb. 23. While I appreciate the more detailed entries in each district, for someone not familiar with the districts and their locations (which might be another idea for an improvement to the article--maybe a map showing the districts) and who just wants some quick recommendations for the top restaurants in and around the City, the restaurant listings formerly in the Eat section were very helpful. (I used it to find Pancho Villa and had a great lunch there.)
That seems like an awfully big edit just to make without discussion (especially by an anon)...should it be reverted? Cluth 02:11, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
The Wikitravel:Huge city article template, as well as accepted policy, is that when an article becomes huge it should be split up. When that split occurs individual listings are moved to the district articles. You are correct, however, that the district breakdown for San Francisco is unusable - please add any comments you might have to the district suggestions above, and with enough feedback hopefully a decision could be made as to how to better sub-divide the city. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:15, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Why are churches under the cope section? I don't think most people go to church to relieve stress. How about changing this heading to Churches or Religious Services unless something else is going to be added to the section. Also how about adding some churches besides Catholic and Mormon. Anybody out there attend one in SF? (Reply to my talk page.)
Can people please help me keep an eye out for spam from this guy. He has already been cited on Wikipedia as a 'persistent spammer'. See a discussion about him on Wikipedia here  and  This article documents how he has reportedly been trying to pass himself off as a member of the band 'The Divine Comedy' (..and not the obscure Goth band he was in of the same name), advertising his hotels on an encyclopedic website, replacing links to desirable and notable hotels with those of his own etc etc... All articles relating to him on Wikipedia have been deleted due to either his lack of notability as a musician, or as unwanted spam on an encyclopedic website.
There is also a lot of spam on Wikitravel from the same IP address as was used on Wikipedia, 220.127.116.11 - this is almost certainly Rudy himself as this IP resolves to his offices at The Nob Hill Hotel, 835 Hyde Street, San Francisco. You can see a history of Wikitravel edits from this IP address here 
Actually, he runs four hotels in total in the San Francisco - the first three of which were advertised on Wikitravel, and all of which get horrible reviews (although saying that the James Court fares ok). He runs them through a company called Pacific Equities West LLC, see 
Villa SOMA, 1554 Howard Street
Nob Hill Hotel, 835 Hyde Street
Fitzgerald Hotel Union Square, 620 Post Street
James Court Hotel (a.k.a. The Nob Hill Pension), 1353-1355 Bush Street
When you look at the reviews from guests on websites like Tripadvisor it becomes apparent that these hotels have a real problem as they get unusually poor reviews. Almost half of the reviewers give the Nob Hill and the Fitzgerald Hotel just 1 star out of 5. Almost all of those complained about the management trying to scam them in some way like through extra credit card charges. Some guests were charged $500 for allegedly smoking in their rooms, when the guests in question apparently don't even smoke. Others booked the Nob Hill only upon arrival to shipped off to the lesser rated Fitzgerald without rebate or explanation. Still others complained about being double charged on their credit card. There were also many reviews that complained about the Nob Hill, The Fitzgerald and Villa Soma having a bed-bug problem. One of the reviewers of Villa Soma points out that this hotel it is listed on the 'Bed-Bug-Blog', and having checked on the reference on the blog, reportedly this building has had an ongoing problem with bed bugs for years. 
As you can see from the contributions history, he has been deleting references to his competitor hotels like the Inter-Continental Mark Hopkins Hotel, The Cartwright Hotel. The Crowne Plaza, Comfort Inn by the Bay, Holiday Inn Select Downtown etc  He has also added editorials suggesting that his hotels are among the "fanciest hotels" in San Francisco and comparable with establishments like the Ritz Carlton and The Huntington Hotel  - this is simply untrue. In an obvious attempt to make his hotels more visible, he has also been constantly editing an article to ensure that his hotels remain at the top of the list  and then listing his hotels under multiple districts in San Francisco. At one point he had the Fitzgerald hotel listed under districts North Beach, Marina, Nob Hill, Civic Center and Union Square - the Nob Hill Hotel and Villa Soma were also listed under multiple districts.
For these reasons I have deleted references to both the Nob Hill and the Fitzgerald Hotels. The Villa Soma references had already been removed.
He has also been advertising non-existent musical venues.  He has been advertising his property at 1353-1355 Bush street as one of the following:
The San Francisco Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
Music City San Francisco
Rudy Colombini's Center for the Performing Arts
The Wikitravel postings made it sound like these are three separate and distinct venues, when in fact they are all at the same address and none of them actually exist at all yet. 1353-1355 Bush Street is a hotel called the James Court Hotel, a.k.a. The Nob Hill Pension  There are plans to set up a musical venue here but they are stalled, apparently due to objections. This is not going to come to fruition for at least 3-4 years, if at all. That's kind of deceiving for people who see one of these on Wikitravel and then turn up only to find a hotel!
He has also been advertising three online blogs that are supposed to cover the events and happenings in Union Square, Nob Hill and North Beach, but all they really do is advertise his hotels and interests front and center. I am all but certain that the anonymous author of these blogs is Rudy himself. 
I have reverted most of his edits to date but please can you help me keep an eye out for future spam relating to the aforementioned Hotels, Venues and Blogs to ensure that they do not re-appear on Wikitravel.
Thanks. Asterix 17:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)
I have checked various web reviews sites for the hotels in question, and I endorse Asterix's view of them. -- Colin 18:19, 26 February 2008 (EST)
FRAUDULENT HOTEL REVIEWS
One last quick point, I feel is really important. Just recently, I noticed a very suspicious pattern of reviewing for his hotels, across almost all the prominent Travel Websites that allow the public to post reviews. The suspicious reviews stretched all the way back to 2003. As an example, the most blatantly obvious of these were two reviews of the Nob Hill Hotel that were posted on 'Tripadvisor.com' - both reviews were posted within a week of each other, both had given the hotel a perfect '5 star' rating, and strangely, the Usernames supplied by the two supposed reviewers were identical to that of the manager of the James Court Hotel, and that of the Pacific Equities Finance Manager, both of whom work at Pacific Equities offices on 835 Hyde Street. Convinced of foul play, I contacted a total of six major websites online and reported Rudy Colombini, his management team led by Angelos Kolobotos, on suspicion of fraudulently posing as real guests and reviewing their own hotels in order to manipulate their ranking and popularity.
Afterwards, for legal reasons I guess, these sites would not give me any real feedback other than to thank me for the information, and to say that they had conducted a thorough investigation of the matter, and that any appropriate action had been taken. However, post investigation, I analyzed all six websites and cumulatively for the Nob Hill and the Fitzgerald Hotel alone, they had removed Fifty-Eight '5 Star' reviews - this represented a whopping 30% of the total number of reviews for these two hotels on those sites!! On Tripadvisor, the most popular of these sites, both hotels instantly crashed in their rankings, with the Nob Hill almost rated as the worst hotel in San Francisco at 221/231, and the Fitzgerald 211/231.
I will leave you to draw your own conclusions about all of this, but for all of the above reasons I don't think any of these hotels should be advertised on Wikitravel. Furthermore, if anyone has a bit of spare time, it's also worth keeping an eye out for any other, even semi-positive reviews, of the aforementioned hotels. If you spot any suspicious ones, now and in the future - Report Them!! Thanks again, and apologies about the length of this. Asterix 13:20, 8 March 2008 (EST)
Man, you guys have really been doing great work on this article, my hat's off to both of you. Now find a few maps to put in -- OSM would be a good starting point -- and this will be both a DotM and a Wikitravel Press book. Jpatokal 13:14, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
I can see it now...San Francisco: the next Chicago of Wikitravel! Pretty thrilling thought. But yeah, first we gotta get some maps. I'm already thinking of laying out some district street maps, like for Fisherman's Wharf, as well as perhaps replacing the current street map on the main San Francisco page with something that is basically the same, except it will actually cover the whole city, not just the northern part of it.
We could also use some Sleep listings for the and Southeast San Francisco articles, but I can't seem to find anything. If we don't get Sleep listings for those, those articles can't go beyond "outline" as per the criteria. PerryPlanet 17:51, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Ok, so I was able to add about 5 lodgings for Twin Peaks-Lake Merced, and another 5 for Southeast San Francisco - not much here though, but at least it's something. Asterix 15:38, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
The main SF article is nearly a star. The district articles, as far as I can tell, are all guide quality, with the sole exception of the Twin Peaks-Lake Merced article. With a little push we could starify the main article, which would be fantastic! I'd be happy to help with that last district article, although I can't say I have any experience with the area ;) --PeterTalk 19:47, 13 November 2008 (EST)
I'd love to see SF become a star...but there are several district articles which are still usable, and without further knowledge of them I'm hesitant to make them guides. Where's Asterix? PerryPlanet 21:22, 13 November 2008 (EST)
To bad the only reg contr is PerryPlanet-who lives in NM. San Franciscians? Keep smiling, eetalk 21:25, 13 November 2008 (EST).
That's not true - there are several regular contributors to the SF articles besides me (heck, I'm hardly a "regular contributor" to the SF articles these days), it just seems that they're not here at the moment. PerryPlanet 23:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Asterix won't be contributing anymore, alas—she was one of the best contributors on Wikitravel, and this is a real loss for the site. I'm really not hesitant to call the remaining articles guides (with the exception of the too short Twin Peaks-Lake Merced article); I've spent enough time looking at district articles to know a guide when I see one, and guides don't have the "complete" requirement that stars do. The usable status on those other articles just looks anachronistic to me. --PeterTalk 00:14, 14 November 2008 (EST)
I'd like to make this happen—star status is given to articles principally so contributors can look over them as a model for what an article should ideally be. This guide is clearly a good model. All that needs to be done is to add a bit to San Francisco/Twin Peaks-Lake Merced and a listing or two to San Francisco/Union Square-Financial District#Do. With four star districts, and only two usables left to push to guide status, this is worth doing. --PeterTalk 16:26, 4 March 2009 (EST)
COTM for this or next month - we could maybe just do the district? I have no objection to revising the schedule to SF this month, Rome next month and Copenhagen following (which is not ready for the tasks set out anyway). Or we could just push SF into next month. --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 16:30, 4 March 2009 (EST)
I think those two districts have more of a content problem, which from reading Wikitravel:Collaboration of the month#Nominate, isn't something a COTM would help much. COTMs seem to shoot more for the little, itty-bitty tasks that anyone can do without any prior knowledge of the place. Anyway - I'm sure I can find something for the Union Square-Financial District Do section (there's bound to be a couple of theaters I can list). Twin Peaks - Lake Merced looks like it might take a bit more work, but it's so close... I am definitely excited to get San Francisco to star status, although the issue of the Events section (see below) does bug me a bit. Not a huge hurdle, but something I would like to see taken care of before we nominate SF for star. PerryPlanetTalk 19:03, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Yeah, I think SF honestly doesn't need a CotM. If I could work up the motivation, I could probably get it there if I put my nose to the grindstone for ~four hours. If John's helping out, it would be less than that. It's really close. --PeterTalk 23:14, 4 March 2009 (EST)
As someone not familiar to San Francisco, it'd be nice if the Events section included more than just one event. :) I've heard of the Bay to Breakers thing, as well as a few others that sounded really interesting. I would like to ask a native (because I'm definitely not qualified) to add a bit of info on some of these events. Maybe include http://www.onlyinsanfrancisco.com/calendar/ as a reference. Thanks! 18.104.22.168 04:26, 24 November 2008 (EST)
Yes, I do not get why you wouldn't look there. It says right at the top to look at them and there is a whole section dedicated to it! Keep Smiling, edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 14:25, 24 November 2008 (EST).
I'm all for adding more events to the section. In fact, the only reason why there's so few events there now is because that is the result of my rearranging the Do section into nice smaller sections. I'd say more events there are a must; feel free to add any major ones as you see fit (I'm speaking to anyone who is interested here). PerryPlanetTalk 19:26, 24 November 2008 (EST)